Genetic pre-disposition Towards Psychedelic Use

[thoughtsUnThought]

Do you think there are specific genetic variations which pre-dispose one towards interest in psychedelics...or more specifically, do you think that psychonautical tendencies are represented in the DNA the same way I've heard that alcohol and addicting drugs are...? Ie, a specific genetic-code character which is able to be understood through studies as being 'resonsible' for such propensity regarding that chemicals use.

Is the fact that alcohol is the main psychoactive used by humans the reason it is given such a place in our genes (or such potential to be a part of the genetic character)? Or is this same tendency for substance use to become represented in the genes, present with other psychoactives as well? Perhaps all the understanding of x genetic character causing 'alcoholism' potentials is so defined simply because of the long-standing use of alcohol among the European lineage.

Lets say we study a tribe's genetic characters who didn't use alcohol but rather mescaline. Would there be genes which are representative of the pre-dispositin towards mescaline use? And even more specifically, do you think that a shaman's lineage would have certain genetic traits making them more capable of psyiologically as wel as mentally processing mescaline's effects...?

Let me knw what ya think....do I have a shaman in my ancient lineage, whose gotten me hooked on consciousness exploration...? lol

 

[Kapitan]

There's certainly a genetic component to drug addiction. Certain people seem to be predisposed to become alcoholics and such. I guess it's not much of a stretch to apply the same principle to psychedelic use. Personally, I can attest that like five people in my family have tried DMT, and several more have tried at least one psychedelic drug. Whether or not our family's shared culture and attitudes can fully account for that, I can't say.

 

[eye_wide_open]

I love psychs but my parents didn't. Totally straight edge.
Don't know anyone in my family who trips like me or even wants to.

I always thought trippin sounded sweet since I heard of acid in grade school.

Maybe I was brainwashed at school. by the D.A.R.E. programs and the likes.

It does seem like I've always had an open mind for what might be out there though and I see through all the stuff out there that is BS. (religions, governments, politics, wars, drug laws etc)

In that sense I may have had a gene predisposed to find it's way to mind opening substances. After all, aren't we programmed to want to do what we're told not to?
This is child's play. Child reverse psychology. It would seem drug enforcement hasn't figured this out yet.

Tell us all drugs are legal and good and I might think they suck like I do boose and cigarettes. Alcohol and cigarettes or government tricks.. that's why they are legal and mushrooms are not.

Of course I'm sure I'd still have one or two drugs I did.
Everyone has their own poison..
..as I learn, moderation is important.

 

[Survived Abortion]

I think this is like saying "do I have a genetic predisposition towards eating weetabix?" No. People like to pin the destiny of everything on genetics, whereas in fact you cannot separate one causal factor from the rest of reality to stand alone. This is the concept of inter-dependant co-arising.

This is exactly why the whole theory of genetic predisposition to addictions is also just as erroneous. The only reason things such as alcohol use would supposedly be "in our genes" is because we retain cellular memory. The use itself (or lack thereof, or anything in between) is as much an environmentally locational and cultural thing as it is an internal habituation.

Once you start excluding everything outside of genetics in order to try and account for human behaviour, habituation, and morality, you enter dangerously in to the murky waters of eugenics. Believing in one causal condition is pure delusion.

None of us are any more "predisposed" in our genes than the next person, it's just that we have all formulated our sense of self differently - and continue to develop and change - in differnt ways from one another, because we all experience reality from varying perspectives of location and time.

Edit: One thing to remember is that coincidences become statistical fact. For example, if you study a family whose ancestry shares a long-standing use of alcohol as their drug, you are likely to come to the conclusion that it is in their genes. Where as if you look at a family where only certain members of the traceable lineage use alcohol to a great degree, you will see no correlation and presume that they don't carry such a "genetic predisposition" to alcohol.

This is a case of drawing fallacious conclusions based on statistical bias. You could come to the very same false conclusions studying mescaline shamans too.

 

[QuasiModo]

That's an interesting concept.. I don't think its too far fetched. I know that my father as well as all of my uncles fucked with LSD, and that me and my brother have both used entheogens rather liberally. The theory of genetic disposition towards entheogenic use certainly fits my experience, though I'd be hesitant to say that my family carries the "psychedelic gene".

 

[thoughtsUnThought]

Lol, I'm not suggesting that genetic pre-disposition is the case, just circulating the concept for discussion

Survived abortion, I'm with ya for the most part. I agree that genetics are often over-revered as theprimary or ultimate determinant of one's actions or tendencies. However, I do think there's something to the study of correlations between exertioh tendencies and genetic simiarities/differences. While I agree that it's not as black and white as often depicted in genetic studies, though I feel to deny the prospect of the correlation having qualitative displays regognizable by study is equally as biased.

I was thinking the connections are likely much more advanced than simple linear correlations between a gene and a behavior. A large collection of genes, or the specific array one has can likely be drawn to noticale tendencies of behavior or physical form. But it may not be so simple as x gene is relative to y display. It could be that a given pattern of DNA components is representative of a particular tendency within one's analytical frontal-cortex firing. We may study and say well this gene here dictates the ability of one's frontal cortex to produce analytical coherency. But I feel the gene cited, is likely a part of a dynamic web of other patterns, or codes whose correlation is rooted not in the quality being studied but rather something of a building block of that process. Perhaps the series of DNA patterns are correkative to certain protein synthesis or neurotransmitter regulations, which are not so easily determinabke as being the correlative process the gene or series of genes is dictating, but instead we can see the measurable variation in drontal-cortex abilities through Mris etc. Kinda confusing way of saying it lol, but I feel there is a relationship between genetics and tendencies, though it is likely not as clean cut as genetic scientists would like one to believe

I dig the words though survived abortion , but like I said, tpfor me the analysis of potential connections between the two is not 'seperating one causal factor' the way I'm looking at it. I understand it's often looked at like that. But to me, the genetic matrix-code is like another fractal-dimension...it's all connected and correlative, but not so simply as black and white cause and effect. I mean for genetics to change based on life exs through generations would have to mean we're affecting tomorriws codes to a Degree right..? A transient dynamic pattern of interplay perhaps...gravity from yesterdays occurrance providing an eroded path of least resistence. Though our conscious actions and exps are also pavong tomorrows paths. Just ideas, I'm just thinkin....I have no side on the matter just philosophification for now

Thanks for the input though guys

 

[Ismene]

The only reason things such as alcohol use would supposedly be "in our genes" is because we retain cellular memory. The use itself (or lack thereof, or anything in between) is as much an environmentally locational and cultural thing as it is an internal habituation.

I think that's simplifying it a bit. One theory is that people are often similar in nature to their parents in lots of ways - if that nature is one susceptible to alcohol misuse then alcohol misuse is more likely to run in the family.

Where as if you look at a family where only certain members of the traceable lineage use alcohol to a great degree, you will see no correlation and presume that they don't carry such a "genetic predisposition" to alcohol.

Well you'd look at the family of the alcoholic compared to the family of the non-alcoholic. If more people in the alcoholics family use alcohol than the non-alcoholics family then that would suggest something wouldn't it. It's not going to be an exact science because people show variations in behaviour.

 

[IamMe90]

I think this is like saying "do I have a genetic predisposition towards eating weetabix?" No. People like to pin the destiny of everything on genetics, whereas in fact you cannot separate one causal factor from the rest of reality to stand alone. This is the concept of inter-dependant co-arising.

This is exactly why the whole theory of genetic predisposition to addictions is also just as erroneous. The only reason things such as alcohol use would supposedly be "in our genes" is because we retain cellular memory. The use itself (or lack thereof, or anything in between) is as much an environmentally locational and cultural thing as it is an internal habituation.

Once you start excluding everything outside of genetics in order to try and account for human behaviour, habituation, and morality, you enter dangerously in to the murky waters of eugenics. Believing in one causal condition is pure delusion.

None of us are any more "predisposed" in our genes than the next person, it's just that we have all formulated our sense of self differently - and continue to develop and change - in differnt ways from one another, because we all experience reality from varying perspectives of location and time.

Edit: One thing to remember is that coincidences become statistical fact. For example, if you study a family whose ancestry shares a long-standing use of alcohol as their drug, you are likely to come to the conclusion that it is in their genes. Where as if you look at a family where only certain members of the traceable lineage use alcohol to a great degree, you will see no correlation and presume that they don't carry such a "genetic predisposition" to alcohol.

This is a case of drawing fallacious conclusions based on statistical bias. You could come to the very same false conclusions studying mescaline shamans too.

To say that genetic predisposition plays NO role is just as erroneous overly simplistic eh? Perhaps we can't accurately parse out the role genetic predisposition plays in the face of other environmental factors (which undoubtedly influence the activation of such genetic predispositions in the first place), but they certainly do exist and play a role.

 

[Issac Sinclair]

OP, I found most of your topics kinda offtopic and not really worth answering. Not trying to be mean, but I don't think anyone knows if Jesus would have cared if we did drugs.

To this topic though, I don't think we'll find a clear answer, although genetics do play a role, how big of a role, we won't know. The environment also plays a part, similar to how someone who wants to get high and sells weed will smoke weed, and someone who has meth will do meth instead.

Here is an interesting article, its not drug related but genetics related... on how they looked for really smart people for their sperm bank, and the kids conceived were geniuses, at least the ones that were public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5078800.stm
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/seed/2001/02/the_genius_babies_and_how_they_grew.single.html

 

[thoughtsUnThought]

If you don't want to answer than don't.
My topics are philosoohically proposed, I'm not suggesting any definite answer. No one knows if jesus would agree w/ psychedelics, thatsbwhy I figured its a good topic for discussion....after all this is a discussion board.

I don't know what you mean by off-topic...? Its a new thread, that's the point a new topic...right?

I enjy the nformatinal questions involving chemistry and the like, but personally I enjoy discussing ourely philosoohical and/or ideas without definite answers. I like the people on here, and enjoy their input...my topics are relevant to psychedelic use and they are not dangerous suggestions, so i have every right to post these ideas. Feeeeel Free to continue viewing them as something nit worth your time contributing to. I'm not vastly offended, but that was a dick post IMO.

You can view me as the mad hatter and avoid my posts, but don't respond to my thread off topicly refuting the efficacy of a different thread I made a week ago....I don't like being dissed on, call me crazy if you will, or eccentric, but give me a break. There's plenty of threads that have litlle-to-nothing to contribute to one's understanding...but we don't need to post refuting those peoples ideas...lol, mine have an analytical articulation possible in response at least, not mundane...I love everyone..but I guess I'm trying to say fuck off. (Or something of that nature) let me and the people who are willing to accept my eccentricity vibe and philosophize...please

 

[Issac Sinclair]

The basic question you're asking is if genetics define if a drug (not just pschedelics) is more likely to be enjoyed, it has little to do with psychedelic drugs, and the entire topic has nothing to do with them.

There is a philosophy section that would be much more suitable for your questions.

 

[thoughtsUnThought]

I'm asking whether the tendency of a person to delve into or be interest in psychonsutical pursuits has a relevent connection in gene traits. Not simoly theenjoiyment of them, but a draw towards repeated use. I feel this topic unique to osychedelics because they are generally non-addicting physically. I am wondering if peoeple feel psychedelics will have this same 'accalaimed' genetic propensity towards use as do addicting feel-good chems like alcohol. What's so off-topic about this? Psychedelics are very different than traditional drugs...maybe they play the same role in genetic imprinting, maybe not. I don't know, hence postings purpose.

Fill the gaps of my inferior reasoning oh great stone-caster. I do seek to understand not argue, if you can encompass the whole concept with all its dimensions into one utterance than send it my way and i can move onto a new idea. If not than let's discuss, so far we've heard survived abortion who leans against predispositinal influence, whereas iamme and ismene are suggesting that there is probably a certain degree of role in genetics effect on behavioral tendencies.

Maybe I'm too crazy to grasp that there is no point to my question....? Seems legit to me

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

When it comes to genetic predisposition, you have to keep in mind that solely means an increased probability. If your genetics make the receptors responsible for addiction overactive, your probability for addiction increases.

I'm positive there are at least some genes that will increase the probability of enjoying psychedelics, but I think that the enjoyment of psychedelics is far more related to a large set of variables which influence your personality.

 

[Ismene]

OP, I found most of your topics kinda offtopic and not really worth answering.

But the point of the board is to have everyone express their own opinion and ideas - the more the better.

 

[Ismene]

I am wondering if peoeple feel psychedelics will have this same 'accalaimed' genetic propensity towards use as do addicting feel-good chems like alcohol.

Be interesting to see if people who enjoy psychedelics are the same kind of people who enjoy alcohol.

 

[RobotRipping]

from what i've seen most psychedelic users (those who trip at least once a month) don't like alcohol. I love psychedelics but hate alcohol. I have alcoholism running all over my family tree but i just don't enjoy it. I think after years of drug use i just have more refined tastes; alcohol has too many side effects but benzos are one my favourite class of drugs.

i find people who are open minded and like to explore or are very imaginative/creative enjoy psychedelics and i'll argue that most of these people don't enjoy alcohol because it's like the opposite of tripping. So maybe i am predisposed to enjoy altering my consciousness (aren't most people like this?) but my environment has determined which drugs i enjoy more. It's not one way or the other and there are many other variables involved.

I also became very interested in LSD and psychedelics after hearing about their amazing effects from cops and teachers when i was a kid in school.

 

[thoughtsUnThought]

Thanks for getting my back Ismene..! was startin to fear the walls would collapse on me, a hoard of rioting blers to burn down my humble encampment burn him for his wacky and inconclusive suggestions..!! lol

You as well robotripping, thanks for the 2¢. That's an interesting idea, perhaps psycoactive use in general could be geneticaly pre-disposed, and maybe even the same genes 'responsible for' or conducive towards alcoholism will also generate interest in any psychoactive encountered.

I was thinking something of a 'new frontier gene'...like old school adventurers and travelers (Daniel boon, Louis and clark etc), perhaps the genes these western new-frontiersmen would have a certain genetic 'adventuring pre-disposing gene'. Lol, just an idea but maybe the same genes responsible for the motivation to travel into foreign land are the same that woud lead a modern-world individual towards psychonauticism, given they expose themselves to such. I was just think in 'adventuring' is def a part of my ancestral lineage being of mostly European descent...perhaps the modern Louis and Clark's are crossing then dark forests of mind, repeating the same process their ancestors did...but this time traveling into consciousness itself. Lol just an idea, don't hang me on the cross

 

[huolesoh]

yes i've seen this idea before from timothy leary, he says it quite confidently, it was good food for thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkv-lFHQjfI

I can attest that like five people in my family have tried DMT

i'm kinda impressed ! at least three people in my family have done 4-PO-DMT but none, including me, have done DMT, except for perhaps in endogenous ways

i think you could also say there are many sociological aspects to people trying psychedelics, i guess this whole topic essentially goes back to age-old philosophy of nature-vs-nurture

 

[Carlqua]

I do not think its down to genetics at all. And I think survived abortion's post was epic putting in to words something I believe and can not explain, after reading this post I simply would of put, no its down to your disposition, your experiences and your culture among other external things. Not that I do not like the fact you have the open minded intelligence to ask such a question and my answer is only my opinion, I do not have the facts to answer it truthfully.

 

[donvliet]

IME some people are more prone to addiction than others. And I don't mean just to substances, but in a broader sense (gambling etc). Is this nature or nurture, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a bit of both.

I also think the drug someone gets addicted to tells a lot about his personality. Often people that use a drug regularly, see their use as a form of self medication. They (try to) counterbalance their mental issues with the effects of the drug. People who are stressed use alcohol or weed to relax, people who like stimulants have little energy of themselves, and maybe regular psychedelic users have something in common as well. A longing for adventure, out-of-the-box thinking, philosophy, spirituality, truth, meaning, a different perspective, intensity, the unknown etc...